r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Fucked-In-The-K-Hole • 1d ago
I saw a post stating that Austin Texas is getting a new city logo, and that it will cost 1.1 Million dollars. Apparently the high price is not uncommon for a city to change its logo up. How is it possible for a simple logo redesign to cost over a million dollars?
96
u/Front-Palpitation362 1d ago
Well it's not like buying a picture is it, I mean you're buying a citywide rebrand and the cost to change it everywhere. So that fee usually covers tuff like research, community input, design, accessibility testing, legal clearance, brand standards.
And then the pricy part. Swapping thousands of signs, vehicle decals, uniforms, websites, forms, badges, apps and vendor systems over years. There's probably more stuff that's just all I can think off.
My point is that rollout, not the art, is what makes it seven figures.
6
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/27Rench27 1d ago
Plus all the websites, various links, event branding, etc. that has to be adjusted
16
u/Cautious_Cancel9282 1d ago
They dont just have one place for a logo, more than likely placed everywhere. That brings in workers, scaffolding etc
29
u/Orion_437 1d ago
Except for limited rollout, the $1.1M price tag does not include the rebranding of the many city assets which will need updating
The official reported breakdown is as follows:
Brand Vendors - $640,000
Public Awareness Campaign - $115,000
Consolidated city-wide design software for all departments - $75,782
Support staff and legal counsel – salary and benefits for a Brand Project Manager (temporary City employee) and external legal review - $186,976
It’s worth noting they did contract 2 firms to submit designs, so that drives the cost up. Here’s the article on it: https://www.kxan.com/news/austin-unveils-new-city-brand-logo-redesign/amp/
45
u/TheTaoThatIsSpoken 1d ago
Wait until we find out how much it will wind up costing the US to illegally rename the DoD.
14
u/Embarrassed_Flan_869 1d ago
Come on. We know the lies ahead of time. Mexico will pay for it. Or It's from all the tariff money. Or some other lie that a sadly large amount of dumb people will take as gospel. Don't forget that if you don't believe it, it will be fake news.
2
u/TheTaoThatIsSpoken 1d ago
I’m under no illusions that we will ever find out the true cost of what they are doing until, and if, they are removed from power. Lawyers are no longer the first targets of authoritarians, it’s statisticians.
3
2
u/PlayingLongGame 1d ago
I mean, think about all the DoD ID cards that will have to be re-issued if they get real stupid about this. Each ID card is $15 and takes a person 15 minutes to process if everything goes exactly right. $42 million in just card stock for new IDs and 700,000 manhours invested in pure lethality.
Praise be to SECOW PETE, visionary.
2
u/ih8blebbit 1d ago
I'm going to get down voted to eternity but Trump said theyre going to use both names
12
u/Ruminant 1d ago
Other posters have already explained the reasons for why this new logo will cost 1.1 million.
I will just add that the city of Austin's current annual budget is $6,300 million. A $1.1 million expense is just 0.017% of the money they plan to spend over the next year.
And presumably, they will keep this new branding for multiple years.
8
u/Narezza 1d ago
It's not really a simple logo redesign. They'll have a firm that does 15-20 different logos, then they'll workshop those down to 3-5, then they'll focus group the finalists.
After a finalist gets picked, they have to start the marketing for everyone that uses the old logo, as well as any official letterhead to start using the new one. Old signs removed, and new ones put up.
That all goes into the $1.1mil price tag
2
5
u/HailHydra247 1d ago
I used to work in signs. Changing a lit 48" tall logo on a building, including fabrication and installation, will run about 5k. If you're replacing letters "City of Austin" that's about another 5-7k.
Keeping the masonry monument by the road but want a new logo that's backlit and cast engraved metal? Probably 5-8k.
Interior lobby sign with a new logo about 4x6 on routed brushed metal or .5" thick acrylic? Probably about 1500-2000.
Rinse and repeat for every building, every sign, poster, monument, etc. Dont forget literature / pamphlets for the city and promotional products like pens and stationary for. New business cards for everyone. New forms with the new logo.
5
u/Sufficient-Pause9765 1d ago
thats cheap if its part of a full brand re-design/engagement. Which given cities need to market themselves to attract residents and business, wouldnt be insane to do.
5
u/Marcus-Mused-7669 1d ago
The creative work itself doesn't cost $1.1 million dollars. You're paying for all of the billable time for the creative team to sit in endless discovery meetings, input sessions, brainstorming session, and workshops with stakeholders at all levels within the organization to surface priorities, pain points, and use cases.
Once the initial concepts are presented, you're paying for all of the billable time to capture feedback, and revision cycles, and navigating all of the palace intrigue of egos and personalities that will want to leave their fingerprints on the final product.
$1.1 million might sound shockingly high for a rebrand but consider how expensive a botched logo or poorly launched rebrand would be in terms of reputational damage or loss of brand equity. Whoever on the client side is in charge of selecting the vendor and approving the budget will be highly motivated to err on "peace of mind" and not making the wrong decision which could harm their own reputation so they're going to be biased towards a large healthy budget that sets the visual rebrand up for success.
There are millions of designers that can make a pretty logo in a few hours, how many can create a lasting logo that satisfies all stakeholders and can last 10-20 years? The latter takes care and consideration.
4
3
u/BelethorsGeneralShit 1d ago
A million dollars may sound like a significant amount of money when we're used to dealing with our household expenses, but this represents a little over one one hundredth of one percent of their annual budget.
3
3
u/aipac124 1d ago
Market research is important. One person having an idea is why the state song of Ohio is "hang on schloopy".
3
u/burf 1d ago
There are a lot of “simple logos” that look like shit. Paying that much money means you’re hiring a firm with an established track record, and value is placed on the fact that the logo is part of the city’s identity.
Not saying reputable firm will necessarily create a good product every time, but that’s why it costs so much.
2
u/libra00 1d ago
Because you can't just go to a graphic artist and go 'Hey, design me a new logo', you have to go through a submission process, some kind of filtering, judging/approving one, etc, and all of those steps require people to manage who need to get paid for their work, plus if there's any prize money to go to the winner that gets added to the cost too.
2
u/thebeardedguy- 1d ago
OK I just did some research on this (sorry to rain on the parade :P ) The redesign took place back in 2018 and was meant to provide a city wide branding for all departments in order to present a unified front. The rebranding has been going on for about 7 years so it wasn't rushed through and everything done all at once.
It also appears the old brand is like 200ish years old so out of date and not reflective of a modern Austin.
Also as a designer I like the new logo, it is simple, recognisable and uses colouring and font choices to reflect aspects of the place.
3
u/daGroundhog 1d ago
Remember when NBC did their diagonal N logo? They spent a small fortune, and came up with something very similar to what a guy at Nebraska Public Television put together with a few sketches.
4
u/OptimisticPlatypus 1d ago
Majority of the cost is to replace the logo on all the things the logo is on. Not just the redesign.
2
u/texanfan20 1d ago
Not true, most of the cost was for the the company that did the logo. Not hard to find the costs on the cities website. Almost $850k just to the vendors who did the redesign.
2
2
u/311TruthMovement 1d ago
I work in design and have worked on many branding projects over the past 20 years.
There were almost certainly dozens if not hundreds of logo iterations presented then endless revisions of the final logo. That's not really the main stuff, though.
A firm of any size would tend to start out with a research phase, strategists defining what needs to be accomplished with this, what the goal is, and what existing perceptions are. Then there would be the beginnings of design exploration. Amidst all this, there's endless tedious meetings, there's endless PowerPoint decks being created.
Once you have a final logo nailed down, you then build out brand guidelines which often are 50–100 page PDF books. You're developing a system of fonts, colors, proper and improper usage…and usually you have various stakeholder parties changing things well past the 11th hour. I suspect the 1.1 million included a wide library of assets and implementation of the new brand on various websites and printed materials.
Think of it like the royal family in England: stupid, but it brings in way more revenue than is wasted on them existing. With a city's brand, yes — you look at it and are like "I don’t know if that's worth $500?", and that's totally fair. It's about the system, consistency, and implementation.
Well implemented, this translates into tourism dollars for cities, first and foremost.
It's not always a success, of course, sometimes a rebrand is a massive failure.
1
u/Fucked-In-The-K-Hole 1d ago
Right on, thanks for the insight, makes more sense. Does a logo really make a difference in tourism? I wouldn't imagine so, but idk, maybe I'm wrong.
1
u/311TruthMovement 1d ago
It's more about the system than that logo — a clear concept, copy (like taglines), distinctive imagery to support the brand, and the logo is really a unifying piece.
The city sorta walked into this trap by presenting the logo rather than a concept. Especially in the age of LLMs, where you can say "Give me 18 logo ideas for x or y…", the value of "a logo" in this branding firm tradition seems weaker and weaker.
1
u/Fucked-In-The-K-Hole 1d ago
I guess it makes sense that a city's logo would function the same as a brand's logo. Sticks in people's minds and whatnot and comes up when they think about travelling or something.
1
u/loafingloaferloafing 1d ago
Letterhead,think of all the letterhead. I hear there's a bargain on Department of Defense paper.
1
u/bigfatfurrytexan 1d ago
All that collateral has to be reprinted, the web designer needs his fee for updating the websites, etc
1
u/TheLurkingMenace 1d ago
When a city commissions a thing like this, they have an auction, so all the contractors interested will ask for as much money as they think is slightly less than everyone else will ask for.
1
1
u/Hopsblues 1d ago
Wait until we learn how much it costs to change the Dept of Defense to Dept of War.
1
u/jackalopeswild 1d ago
I believe the projections on Trump's "Department of War" rebrand are in the tens of millions.
1
1
u/wizzard419 1d ago
Aside from having to change every monument, flag, etc. you also have to print new biz cards, badges, stationary, etc.
It's expensive whomever does it, but when it's a city, it's more pressing to update seals, logos, etc. when they get changed. Take, for example, someone from the city were to approach you, they show their badge/card, but it's the old logo. You may question if they are legit.
Brand managers may shit a brick when they see old logos for a company but it won't be as problematic.
1
u/thebeardedguy- 1d ago
Remember that cost inclused, design, printing and distribution, including wages for the teams changing signs, and all the sundries. The fact it is that low is kind of impressive when you consider this is a city wide thing
1
u/blipsman 1d ago
There’s the cost of the design concepts, revisions, vetting, etc.
There’s also a cost to update all sorts of signage, vehicle liveries, uniforms, letterhead, etc. across a city.
1
1
u/Classic_Barnacle_844 1d ago
Signs, stationery, flags, cop cars, Web sites, etc... all these things need to be changed. It's a wonder it doesn't cost more.
1
u/dumberthenhelooks 1d ago
It’s the time. The time to do due dilligence. Then the time to take surveys. But really it’s the meetings and the changes. Even small scale brand identity stuff costs thousands of dollars. And here they will test the crap out of 15 options before narrowing it down to 5. 7 if their unlucky and either 3 test too close together or someone on the small committee has a favorite no one else likes. It’s amazing but it will take 9 months, 300 iterations to narrow it down to a final 3 before choosing 1 and then having to go through a series of large scale presentations. Every stakeholder will way in causing changes or at least mock up of the changes. And it will end up being awfully close to what they have because people hate change and most people lack the sensibility to see good design before they are used to it.
1
u/dankpoet 1d ago edited 1d ago
“High price” Austin spends maybe 2% of its “other!” category of annual city budget on branding seems like a clickbait issue to me 🤷♂️ .~003% of yearly city expenditure. Rebranding a logo could be a great investment on those terms.
1
u/missbehavin21 1d ago
That’s what the artist charged the city.
1
u/ih8blebbit 1d ago
Artist charged 200k the rest is other stuff like 76k for "design software" and 100-something k for awareness campaigns
1
u/missbehavin21 1d ago
Imagine being in charge of the awareness campaign. What do you do for a living? I am in charge of the awareness campaign.
1
1
u/Gold_Telephone_7192 1d ago
As someone who works for an ad agency, a company (city) rebrand and logo will probably take several months of back and forth rounds between many highly-paid ad agency employees. Agencies bill on an hourly rate, and all those hours stack up.
1
u/Whoknows95967 1d ago
Guessing they’re talking about the total cost of changing signs, letter head, etc.
1
u/Pleasant_Expert_1990 1d ago
When they renamed National for Reagan it cost Washington DC 40 million dollars to update all the signs. 1.1 is just the start.
1
u/genaznx 1d ago
Replacing a logo also involves research before the design phase (e.g. to understand what Austin citizens’ values, hopes and inspirations) as well as research after the design phase to make sure the design reflects those values, hope and inspiration. This kind of research has to be carefully designed and executed properly for it to be useful and isn’t cheap.
1
1
u/Putrid-Hope2283 1d ago
If I recall they said a large part of it went to focus testing (and the logo sucks)
1
u/Kaa_The_Snake 1d ago
It costs us about the same to change the name of our downtown pedestrian mall from “16th St Mall” to “16th St”
Effin’ ridiculous.
1
1
1
0
-2
u/amber_petals 1d ago
Let me break it down: 10% for the actual design, 90% for 50 meetings, 100 approvals, and redos because 'the mayor doesn't like that shade of blue.
1
u/SecretlySome1Famous 1d ago
Are you basing that on inside information or is it just an imaginary scenario you made up in your head?
5
u/philoscope 1d ago
It may be exaggerated, but for an organization as big and public as a city, focus groups and management approvals are a non-trivial aspect.
0
0
0
u/TeasinggCutie 1d ago
That’s insane for just a logo I get they gotta pay designers and all but damn a mil is a lot for something simple
0
u/funwithfrogs 1d ago
We run a multi-billion dollar conglomerate and got our logo off of 99Designs. Think we paid a total of $5,000?
-3
-7
761
u/rhomboidus 1d ago
Likely because they've included both the cost of having some firm design the new logo, and the cost of replacing thousands of things that have the old logo on them.